Real word for "rock" in Aramaic?

[jphilapy]

Maccabees:

Catholics point out Abraham as the ROCK of the OT because you guys are constantly saying that Only God is a rock we are proving from scripture that men can be rocks as well. End of story we did not say Abraham started a type of Papacy you falsely accused of us doing that but we didn’t you assumed that. ANd when you assume well things happen.
Well if Peter being a rock isn’t such a big deal why the exagerations by you guys of parsing words to avoid the obvious context that Peter is the Rock.

The thing is macc, I didn’t falsely accuse you of anything. I asked how you come to the conclusion that Peter is supreme just because he is called the rock. That is a fair question to ask. And I offered my thoughts as context to others see where I am coming from.

Now back to the topic. I can see how Peter is the rock based on the catholic explanation, but I am always open to alternative explanations. Again that is fair for me todo.

Other questions are, how can there be another foundation when Paul said there is only one? Is Peter being the rock, the same thing as being a foundation? What did he mean that would make it so that Peter or nobody else can be that foundation?

If there is only one foundation then what kind of foundation is Paul talking about? What kind of foundation is Peter? How do they relate?

These are fair questions.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

Maccabees:

You guys are non-catholics. Whatever you want to call yourself is your problem.

My point is that I am not here to dispute and prove people wrong. You are grouping me up with everyone else. Or maybe you think it is a crime to question the catholic churches teachings?

Jeff

 

[Maccabees]

**This is an excellent point that deserves some attention. Just the sheer logic of it. **

**The protestant view really has no flow or logic behind the statment, and makes no real sense, from a grammatical point of view. **

**If i were an “athiest” interpreter, and had no particular stand on catholic vs. protestant views on Church authority, I would be more swayed towords the logical flow of context derived from the second of your two translation examples. It just makes more logical and grammatical sense. Jesus was setting up the most Important Institution on Earth, I pretty sure he would have been precise and clear in his statements. **

Peace of the Lord be with you all!

---

Most modern protestant scholar exegites no longer use this silly argument anymore although the layman and anti-catholic pastor still can’t let go of it.
Heck I have an evangelical Bible commentary that concedes the basic point.
The IVP Bible Commentary which has a very protestant slant on many passages states in regards to Mt 16:18
In Aramaic, Peter and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here),
they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is built cf Is 51:1-2, Eph 2:20

Thus all of this is much ado about nothing.
Shua and Evna are not applicable here because Peter is never translated to be any of these things he is Kepha and only Kepha in the Bible whether is be the Codex mostly in Greek or the Peshita based in Aramaic.

 

[Maccabees]

jphilapy:

My point is that I am not here to dispute and prove people wrong. You are grouping me up with everyone else. Or maybe you think it is a crime to question the catholic churches teachings?

Jeff

Your in a group non-catholic.
Stop whining you sound like a 3 year old.
Do I have to be Politcally correct and call you a non-catholic in good standing. Well that would be dishonest for me to do so since your not in any standing good or bad with the church your simply non-catholic.
Your non-catholic end of story.

 

[Maccabees]

jphilapy:

The thing is macc, I didn’t falsely accuse you of anything. I asked how you come to the conclusion that Peter is supreme just because he is called the rock. That is a fair question to ask. And I offered my thoughts as context to others see where I am coming from.

Now back to the topic. I can see how Peter is the rock based on the catholic explanation, but I am always open to alternative explanations. Again that is fair for me todo.

Other questions are, how can there be another foundation when Paul said there is only one? Is Peter being the rock, the same thing as being a foundation? What did he mean that would make it so that Peter or nobody else can be that foundation?

If there is only one foundation then what kind of foundation is Paul talking about? What kind of foundation is Peter? How do they relate?

These are fair questions.

Jeff

There is only foundatio Jesus Christ that doesn’t stop the apsotles as being the foundation of the church as well and Peter as the ROCK. They share in the attributes of Jesus as they are in the body of Christ.
LEts take the anology of a family there is one Father yet we call the male father there is once creator yet we attribute the female as a co-creator.
Both share these attibutes of God as they were made in the image and likeness of God.
A women we would say participates in the miracle of creation by mean of participation and cooperation of this role she made for by God. She is not co-creator as in equal to God but in participation.
Likewise Peter is participating in a role given to him by Christ he particates in being a foundation and the ROCK as he cooperates with the grace that Jesus gave him to lead the church we see in the first 15 chapeter of Acts as being an explicit leader and head of the church.

 

[Trelow]

Well for 1500 years everybody seamed to understand pretty well.

Change your beliefs to match the Truth.
Not the Truth to match your beliefs.

 

[jphilapy]

Trelow:

Well for 1500 years everybody seamed to understand pretty well.

Change your beliefs to match the Truth.
Not the Truth to match your beliefs.

Don’t you think you folks are being somewhat unrealistic about how plain matt 16 is considering that it took folks over 300 years to arrive at conclusions that you now accept? Even believers who were closest to the apostles offer a different interpretation of matt 16 than you offer.

Jeff

 

[montanaman]

Thanks, all. This is helpful.

Don’t you think you folks are being somewhat unrealistic about how plain matt 16 is considering that it took folks over 300 years to arrive at conclusions that you now accept? Even believers who were closest to the apostles offer a different interpretation of matt 16 than you offer.

Jeff

What do you mean? It was clear, according to the Early Church Fathers. If you’re referring to the compilation of the Bible, that’s another thing. I’ve never read any EARLY Church disputes over Matt 16:18.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Maccabees:

Your in a group non-catholic.
Stop whining you sound like a 3 year old.
Do I have to be Politcally correct and call you a non-catholic in good standing. Well that would be dishonest for me to do so since your not in any standing good or bad with the church your simply non-catholic.
Your non-catholic end of story.

No, what you have to be is a charitable Catholic who defends the Church with humility, unless you believe that you are not above exalting yourself? You come across as pompous and arrogant, and are doing nothing to demostrate that the Church has an open door policy. The Church is Catholic, meaning universal, and is therefore open to all people, once they get over their theological hang-ups. John Cardinal Newman spend a great deal of his life questioning the Church while he was an Anglican. His questioning lead him to research Church history, which lead him straight across the Tiber into the Catholic clergy. You are doing nothing to foster faith in Catholic doctrine. In fact, because of you patently rude and snide disposition, you are forcing other people to retreat behind their non-Catholic position. You are sounding like a cocky 7 year old school bully. You are an arrogant Catholic zealot, end of story. I suggest you purchase a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie and read it before any further attempts at apologetics.

 

[rjmporter]

Jeff,

Can you give us an example of Early Church fathers who understood this passage differently? Where they seeing a different meaning AND denying any other sense of the passage?

The Catholic interprets the “rock” not as continuing but as remaining present. We base the authority of the office of the papacy on the fact that Peter was the rock. That is, the papcy has the authority of a successor to the rock.

We, as Catholics,** don’t** base the establishment of office of the papcy on the Rock, but rather on the keys. The keys [Matt 16:19] had been a symbol of authority in the Davidic Kingdom [Isa 22:2] given to the “Prime Minister” or “Visier” which had been intended as a perpetual and continuing office. As Christ’s Kingdom is a fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, His establishment of this office is perfectly understandable to us.

Hope I am making sense. And for what it’s woth, I don’t think you are “one of THEM.”

God Bless,
Ross

 

[Trelow]

jphilapy:

Don’t you think you folks are being somewhat unrealistic about how plain matt 16 is considering that it took folks over 300 years to arrive at conclusions that you now accept? Even believers who were closest to the apostles offer a different interpretation of matt 16 than you offer.

Jeff

It took someone sitting on the pot who had an obvious love of all things fecal to start to question what Jesus said.

Now, I have great respect for some things Luther did, but that boy had a disorder.

 

[montanaman]

I think my opponent’s main (stolen) argument breaks down into two parts:

1. That petros and petra are two distinct words although “they have the same root.”
2. Because two words are used in the Mathew passage, they must have been translated from two Aramaic words.

I think this fails on both counts.

According to everything I’ve heard or read, petra and petros were used synonymously in Jesus’ time. There was no material difference. Only the fundamentalist fringe still thinks otherwise, and according to Tim Staples, it’s hard to find Protestant scholars who see a real difference in the two words.

The second part fails because it’s based on the assumption that these two “distinct” words MUST have been translated from two distinct Aramaic words. But I’ve even asked a Jewish friend who lurks around these boards–he says that kepha means rock, and evna meas smaller stone. My oppenents argument places a lot of weight on the authority of the Greek text–basically considering it more authoritative than the words Christ actually spoke. If indeed the Greek translation is the standard by which we “reconstruct” the Aramaic words used, he might have a case, But we know a lot about Aramaic, (as far as I can tell), and with Church history, ECF documentation and Tradition, the theological hay he tries to make with this backward “reconstruction” approach is HIGHLY unlikely.

I’m still waiting for a response, but I suspect it will be more of the snarky sass he’s been giving me for 20 pages. Then again, apparently he discovered google, so he might start adding some substance to his “arguments.”

 

[Wolseley]

Folks, Matthew 16:18 really only makes sense if you contrast it with John 21:15-19.

So, ya’ll go off and read John and then tell me:

Who, in this passage, is Jesus authorizing to act as shepherd for Him when He returns to the Father?

I’ll be out by the pool with a drink. Let me know if you need me.

 

[Trelow]

Wolseley:

Folks, Matthew 16:18 really only makes sense if you contrast it with John 21:15-19.

So, ya’ll go off and read John and then tell me:

Who, in this passage, is Jesus authorizing to act as shepherd for Him when He returns to the Father?

I’ll be out by the pool with a drink. Let me know if you need me.

No, no, no. Jesus is speaking literally there. After the resurrection He had taken up shepherding, as pointed to by the shepherd boys coming to visit him in Bethlehem.

 

[Malachi4U]

My 2 cents worth.

How many words today does our English language have for snow? I bet it’s close to one!

Now lets go to Alaska and see how many words for snow the natives have up there? It’s over 250!

Here’s the point. If I translate something from lets an Eskimo writting to English that describes a type of snow, the only thing I could do is just say snow. I might use some other words to give better descriptions or I could just use the one word ‘snow’ since I want a word for word translation? But I would also loose some meaning too. Anytime we translate from one language to another we encounter problems with words that have no counterpart or words that do not mean exactly the same thing. We must also change words to fit grammer and the rules of the new language.

Next, take the words ‘stone’ and ‘rock’. My old Baptist preacher man used to cut down the pope from his pulpit all the time. How could Jesus build His Church on a little stone, a peable? Jesus would use a massive rock instead!

The problems you find with this preachers opinions are found in history and the dictionary and the AKJV.

In the AKJV the word ‘stone’ is used not ‘rock’. Why? Well low and behold the word ‘rock’ had not yet been invented!

What does stone mean? A precious and pure thing. A cornerstone for building. A stone quarry (sp?) where masive stones are cut for building blocks.

So stone is a good meaning jsut not what many protestants think. We use words one way today that were used other ways years ago. Just take the word ‘gay’ for example. In my lifetime its meaning as used commonly has changed greatly.

Take some of these points and put them in your toolbag to use when needed too.

 

[camby]

Plety of them. One is Watchman. He pops his ugly head up on different sites. He starts by insinuating something and then blowing it out of proportion. One emailer was defending her Catholic friends against his hate-filled spew. He then started in on the Passion movie showing Christ with one eye out. That was his lead in to the One eye of Masons found on the $1 bill and that the RCC started/controls the Mason’s, etc. If it were me, I would copy and post the excellant explanations on this site to him instead of getting angry, frustrated and turning into hte Fundamentalists.

 

[jphilapy]

Scott_Lafrance:

No, what you have to be is a charitable Catholic who defends the Church with humility,

Hi Scott and Rj I appreciate your help and encouragement in this matter. I am not sure why the tone was taken with me as it was. I looked over my emails and see nothing negative in them as far as my questions.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Vincent]

Chesterton wrote somewhere that quarrels ruin a good argument. Now, back to the argument!

 

[jphilapy]

rjmporter:

Jeff,

Can you give us an example of Early Church fathers who understood this passage differently? Where they seeing a different meaning AND denying any other sense of the passage?

Ross thanks for the explanation.

Here is a quote from Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11.:

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

Also here is a quote from Augustine where he retracts his earlier comments regarding matthew 16 and offers a corrected explanation of it.

Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

Augustine adopted and accepted the interpretation that the church would be built up on the confession of Peter. But then Augustine left it open to interpretation to the reader showing that the interpretation of that passage which is apparently the required one that catholics today are to adopt was not required by folks in the time of augustine to adopt. It was open to speculation. Apparently the plain sense of matt 16 as it is understood by catholics today wasn’t so plain to even those closest to the apostles.

Jeff